What does Lulu consider "x-rated text"?

In "Appendix A Lulu Content Policy and Guidelines" under "Pornography" the list of examples includes "x-rated text." What makes text "x-rated"? Everyone has a definition of pornography, for sure, but how explicit does text---not images or graphics---have to be before it becomes x-rated?

For what it's worth, text searches on "pornography" and "x-rated" return no results from the Knowledge Base or Forums. Apologies if I've missed it, and I would be grateful for a link to where it is discussed.

My question is not intended to dispute Lulu's right to decide whatever it wants about content, only to get a little more clarity on where the limits are.

But on most book sites, even on Lulu, there's a Report This button, in case any one objects, and I think that one of the categories sets a book at Adult, but I am not sure if those settings carry across to other sites, or in fact how sites are sure of the age of people browsing them. (Although somehow UK 'porn' sites have been told to attempt to do just that.)

There is a box to check when publishing to indicate the material is "adult" in nature, or words to that effect. For Lulu, that makes the material unavailable to minors, and flags the material for Amazon, iTunes and other retailers to classify accordingly.

The important opinion is Lulu's, and I was hoping there might be some more clarity somewhere. Certainly there's a business utility in leaving it vague, and I'd doubt Lulu has any interest in engaging in a lively debate over "x-rated" or the definition of pornography. It's whatever Lulu says it is.

I seem to remember some more specific content guidance in years past: no sexual activity depicted for persons under age 18, for example. That's clear marker (leaving aside what "sexual activity" means, of course) even if it doesn't define "x-rated." A quick survey of mainstream fiction published by commercial houses reveals some pretty explicit stuff, "50 Shades" aside. Full disclosure: I'm married to an Outlander fan, and she's read me some pretty hot passages, some of which could not be filmed even as a hard R.

Thanks for the comments. If there's a Lulu person around perhaps he or she could offer some further guidance.

One reason for the vagueness ties back [at least in part] to differing laws and customs in differing jurisdictions.

One example being descriptions of sexual activities by persons under the age of 18. In some jurisdictions the age of consent is 14, in others 16, in others 17, while in others there is no age of consent outside marriage. Many countries list a lower age for females than males. Far easier to go with age 18 than restrict sales by specific venues.

If the material holds artistic value and does not promote activities that are considered either illegal and / or immoral by most normal standards then it would take something extraordinary to get it flagged as X-Rated or obscene.

If you wonder if your work might be considered a bit too much, it might be easier to have someone on staff take a look and decide.

Going back to the original question, what exactly does Lulu mean by "x-rated text"? Does the company have any explanation for that standard and who it is that might set it? "X-rated" suggests that some entity has done the rating, especially since it sounds like something pre-existing. Who would that be?

There is a box to check when publishing to indicate the material is "adult" in nature, or words to that effect.

It leaves it up to the publisher to decide if it is Adult or not. But should there not be more categories? Young Adult. Under Tens, whatever? Some sites ask for a specific age range to be ticked.

For Lulu, that makes the material unavailable to minors, and flags the material for Amazon, iTunes and other retailers to classify accordingly.

But as I have said, there's no real way of checking anyone's age. It's too easy for a kid to click they are over 18, and even work out a birthdate to go with it.

The important opinion is Lulu's, and I was hoping there might be some more clarity somewhere. Certainly there's a business utility in leaving it vague, and I'd doubt Lulu has any interest in engaging in a lively debate over "x-rated" or the definition of pornography. It's whatever Lulu says it is.

Most sites use the tick boxes as a 'let out' (just the same as the 'are you the copyright holder?' tick boxes.) Lulu, and all other sites, can simply say that the publisher had the option to tick Adult, and it's not the site's fault if they did not.

I seem to remember some more specific content guidance in years past: no sexual activity depicted for persons under age 18, for example.

I think it's Terry Brooks who in his YA novels calls it the Adult Conspiracy. The characters in the books even mention it.

If you had a 14-year-old daughter and you wouldn't want her to read it, then you might want to tick the "adult" checkbox.

Another test is if it would so gravely offend your elderly spinster aunt that she would disinherit you and revoke your future invitations to Thanksgiving dinner, then you might wish to restrict the content.

It can be a problem attempting to work out what is suitable for various ages. Some 14 year old kid may already be watching porn online, whereas some elderly person may indeed find it shocking. But things to consider are the laws in different countries. In the UK for example, people can have sex once they reach 16, so they may be no stranger to it, but 'adult' is set at 18 (it used to be 21.) But when all said and done, people will buy and read what interests them.

Kant suggested that we only do things if we might wish there to be a rule forcing everyone to do the same. For example, one may not kill unless everyone should kill; we do not wish to live in utter Barbary, thus we must not kill. We do not want everyone to steal, therefore we must not steal. That is the idea of KCI, in a nutshell.

BUT... suppose a psychopath, who makes a rule: "When one has the opportunity to torture and kill without being caught, one should do so." Well, he doesn't mind the rule for others, so he is not barred by KCI from torturing and killing. And since a person tends to normalize one's own behavior, and even to project one's own thoughts onto others, anyone who can live with his own crimes (however heinous) can do as he pleases without KCI offering the slightest bar.

As an example, note how easily you skirted my guide for pornography by saying that you have neither a 14-y-o daughter nor a spinster aunt, and if you did, they wouldn't want to read your writings. So, clearly, my sieve put no strain on you (pardon the pun).

Some psychopaths don't even worry about being caught since people in the communities they live in know what's going on, but fail or refuse to do anything about the situation. KCI only applies to those who are willing to practice self-control as well as consider the situation and / or sensibilities of others.

A good rule of thumb if in doubt check the mature content box. Who knows, it might even gain the author a few readers.

Kant suggested that we only do things if we might wish there to be a rule forcing everyone to do the same.

Well I am glad you knew what that nonsense meant. Philosophers rarely make any sense. They should learn to use plain langue and just say exactly what they mean. You cannot tell me you knew what it meant without reading somewhere what someone thought he meant. Many of his other quotes make sense, but perhaps it depends on the translator.

For example, one may not kill unless everyone should kill; we do not wish to live in utter Barbary, thus we must not kill. We do not want everyone to steal, therefore we must not steal.

And the world takes a lot of notice of that ...

That is the idea of KCI, in a nutshell.

It's not a law, just a statement.

BUT... suppose a psychopath, who makes a rule: "When one has the opportunity to torture and kill without being caught, one should do so." Well, he doesn't mind the rule for others,

They have no rules, that's what makes them a psychopath, and getting caught is often not on their minds.

And since a person tends to normalize one's own behavior, and even to project one's own thoughts onto others, anyone who can live with his own crimes (however heinous) can do as he pleases without KCI offering the slightest bar.

You are still talking about a psychopath, and it is not something that can be passed on like a trend because it is far from normal.

As an example, note how easily you skirted my guide for pornography by saying that you have neither a 14-y-o daughter nor a spinster aunt, and if you did, they wouldn't want to read your writings. So, clearly, my sieve put no strain on you (pardon the pun).

I did not skirt around it, it was just an irrelevant statement which I answered by saying a published book could end up read by 1000s, of which one has no control over. It's irrelevant who I would personally allow to read something I have written. All one can do is suggest an age range when publishing a book and leave it to fate. I have already answered that in other postings. One day you will read all of my postings on subjects and not simply ignore them because you are going over things already replied to.

Some psychopaths don't even worry about being caught since people in the communities they live in know what's going on, but fail or refuse to do anything about the situation. KCI only applies to those who are willing to practice self-control as well as consider the situation and / or sensibilities of others.

A good rule of thumb if in doubt check the mature content box. Who knows, it might even gain the author a few readers.

But why quote some long dead philosopher to try to prove something when plain English would have done? And what he said comes as no great surprise.

But you do know what a philosopher is don't you? A person who thinks for themselves. There's a hint there as to why one does not need to use what they say as an example of how to live ones life.

Oh, and what we know as scientists today were once called philosophers.

I will now leave you two to agree with each other, no matter what is said :-)

Kevin, I am quite familiar with Philos Sophia, the [brotherly] love of wisdom. I first reasoned philosophically in the late sixties, not yet knowing that I was doing so; I first read philosophy in the early 70s, again ignorant of its context in the broader world.

The wise man reads and quote philosophy because it helps him to pursue Sophia -- does she not cry out from every street corner? When I began to formally study Philosophy in the early 80s, I found an old friend. It was clear to me why Mersault shot the Arab five times -- C'etait chaud! -- What else could he do, under the circumstances?

Yes, the philosopher must think for himself, but Socrates wisely pointed out that Wisdom is a road walked more easily by two than by one. Better still, says Solomon, is three, for a cord of three strands is not easily broken. Yes, science was once a pursuit of wisdom; now it is the pursuit of knowledge, and more's the pity. Wisdom without knowledge is a gun without bullets; knowledge without wisdom is like bullets without a gun.

But let's leave the dead philosophers in their tomb, for you, O Wise Kevin, would discover all things from first principles, without their help...

I think it's dangerous to label things pornographic or x-rated unless they are illegal concepts. Is Birdsong pornographic? It has many sexual scenes, is The English Patient pornographic? Is Madame Bovary? They all would be considered pornographic 100 years ago. Is ancient Greek pottery pornographic?

It's not just time based, it's also a cultural question. In the French schools here, the girls have and discuss sex way earlier than in the English schools. And sex is discussed openly in the homes --over dinner and as nothing unusual.

Just coming across this thread by chance the thought that enters my mind is, wow, puritanical. Alerting me to the cultural difference.

I do not recommend anyone click on "adult content" unless it is extremely racy, to the point of being vulgar. Otherwise you will restrict your readership to a "perverted" 1% of the population that actually goes out seeking especially adult content. The rest will simply not mind the couple of pages of steamy activity.

I can agree with what you're saying up to a point, though I would also point out adult content can be topics other than sex.

I spent a lot of my early years on a farm, so at what some would consider a tender age I had a very good idea of what sex entailed.

I have been places where the age of consent for girls was 12, or the legal age was 18 yet they were being married off in religious ceremonies and expected to have children as early as age 10. [I found and still consider many practices and beliefs in those places rather odious. I also had to respect the local mores while there, or wake up with a new 'mouth' about five inches below the one nature provided me with.]

There are places where the local population has someone 'blacking out' words deemed 'offensive' in books for children, where the locals burned the entire contents of a library due to the presence of a book on physiology that included details of the human reproductive tract.

It's one thing to deal with the world as it should be and all the local variations in what's considered acceptable, and another thing to deal with the world as it is. It also doesn't matter what I think about the customs of a particular area, what matters is what the people living there think about their customs as well as what they care enough about to change.

I may not be a citizen of the world, but if I'm going to put my work out on a global scale I do have to consider a wide variety of cultural sensitivities embedded in people I will never meet. I don't have to like particular customs any more than I have to respect and embrace particular belief systems, but I do have to respect the right of other people to decide for themselves what is and what is not acceptable to them. After all is said and done, what I may deem too racy or vulgar probably isn't what others may deem unacceptable.

I think it's dangerous to label things pornographic or x-rated unless they are illegal concepts. Is Birdsong pornographic? It has many sexual scenes, is The English Patient pornographic? Is Madame Bovary? They all would be considered pornographic 100 years ago. Is ancient Greek pottery pornographic?

It's not just time based, it's also a cultural question. In the French schools here, the girls have and discuss sex way earlier than in the English schools. And sex is discussed openly in the homes --over dinner and as nothing unusual.

Just coming across this thread by chance the thought that enters my mind is, wow, puritanical. Alerting me to the cultural difference.

I do not recommend anyone click on "adult content" unless it is extremely racy, to the point of being vulgar. Otherwise you will restrict your readership to a "perverted" 1% of the population that actually goes out seeking especially adult content. The rest will simply not mind the couple of pages of steamy activity.

On an amusing note, there are many local libraries where I live, and when I was a teenager, I could go through books in the genres preferred by the adults in my extended family -- westerns, for example, or certain types of mysteries -- and know immediately which of my family members had read them, and in what order. Or the last flypage, in faint pencil, would be their initials: RHR, HLH, EH, RL, LMH, and so forth. This was to prevent them from accidentally checking out the same book repeatedly, you understand.

With one particular adult, however, the method of detection was slightly different. If there were a vulgar word in the first few pages, it would be covered with Wite-Out (TM) or a similar correction fluid. This might continue for up to ten pages, where there would be a doodle of a horse or of a girl walking a small dog, and then no further marks.

The doodle represented the point at which she decided the book had no further redeeming value, and despite an otherwise near-religious love for books, she would absently doodle in the margin, then realize what she had done, close the book, and return it to the library at the soonest possible moment.

You may think this immoral, to deface a book so, but in her mind, she believed that if she were offended by the language, then everyone ought to be offended by that same language, thus no right-thinking person would be offended by her alterations.

I, myself, am not offended by vulgarities and profanities -- I was in the navy, and I assure you, I heard much worse, expressed in more creative and explicit terms, than anything one might find in a library book. I am also not offended when the characters behave according to their desires and instincts instead of according to Victorian mores. These things happen.

But I also recognize that not everyone is as tolerant as I am, so I try to restrict the matter in my books to things which would not earn higher than an R-rating, and most of my books fall comfortably in the PG range. I try not to use my freedom to write as a license to offend.

For the relative who kept Wite-Out by her reading lamp, I actually removed three pages from one of my books before giving her a copy...

I can't claim to have served, though I was a 'tourist' for a time and at age 42 turned down WO-2 and full waivers [age and medical] for reasons of my own. If I have to visit an abattoir or view medical procedures as they happen it generally doesn't phase me, unless it's chickens involved. Something about that smell gets my gag reflex going...

Western cultures talk about valuing 'freedom of speech' while various Eastern cultures view it as 'freedom from speech', as in the right to not be bothered by speech or topics found offensive.

I've written things that as written may not include sex or expletives but would raise the hackles of people who are easily offended. Those works will remain where they are until I can edit them or until my heirs deem it time to offend the complacent.

Having had a great-aunt who wouldn't bathe or use the toilet unless it was totally dark [the sight of human anatomy was something she found offensive] while other of my kin could help deliver a calf or foal or castrate young bulls while eating a sandwich, I'll err on the side of caution.

I think it's dangerous to label things pornographic or x-rated unless they are illegal concepts.

If something is X-Rated then it's already been passed as legal. I don't think anything is actually officially classed as porn unless it cannot get a rating, which would probably make it illegal, but that's never stopped people making it, selling it, or buying it. It's just 'under the counter' stuff, or nowadays on line.

Is Birdsong pornographic? It has many sexual scenes,

To birds perhaps, hardly to humans. A lot of birdsong is not sexual though. Which cannot be said about other animal actual sex.

is The English Patient pornographic? Is Madame Bovary? They all would be considered pornographic 100 years ago.

The first was written in 1992. The latter was considered to be obscene, but did they have laws to ban it? I am not sure they did. I cannot comment on either because I haven't read or seen them. Legalities change over the years though. Usually when religions loose their grip on rating them.

Is ancient Greek pottery pornographic?

Do you mean naked men fighting? No ... If you want ancient example then consider the Kama Sutra, which is even carved in to the out side of ancient temples, making them very hard to add an age rating to them! As a book for the general population a lot has been edited out ...

It's not just time based, it's also a cultural question. In the French schools here, the girls have and discuss sex way earlier than in the English schools.

Do you mean sex or biology? Reproduction? Which is taught very early in schools in the UK so why not in Canada? And what do you mean by have sex earlier? What age do you mean?

And sex is discussed openly in the homes --over dinner and as nothing unusual.

Discussing sex is more to do with how comfortable families are with each other rather than to do with nationality.

Just coming across this thread by chance the thought that enters my mind is, wow, puritanical. Alerting me to the cultural difference.

I am not sure which bits you refer to as "puritanical." When publishing something, especially for general release, it's more to do with what is legal and that it not only differs from country to country, but in the USA, from state to state. That's the important thing to consider.

I do not recommend anyone click on "adult content" unless it is extremely racy, to the point of being vulgar. Otherwise you will restrict your readership to a "perverted" 1% of the population that actually goes out seeking especially adult content. The rest will simply not mind the couple of pages of steamy activity.

Adult is also a legal term. In the UK it's 18, even though one can have legal sex at 16, join the armed forces and kill people, but cannot vote until you are 18. I doubt clicking Adult will be misconstrued as potential porn. Legally it could just mean that there are a lot of profanities in it and lots of graphic violence and no sex at all. YA usually has none of those things. But I do agree that, like many other sites, there are age RANGES to select here, not just the ambiguous 'Adult.' But often that filter only works when people are not logged in, just browsing.

It's a big discussion and could go on for decades and be different from country to country. There will never be agreement.

However, I like what Margarer Atwood says. Write as if no one will read it. To paraphrase, "Write as if each word is erased after you write it." If this is the case then, there is no room for censorship or self doubt when writing.

And I reiterate. Do not click on adult content unless you're using a lot of c words. F words are of everyday use in North America.

Actually what is deemed appropriate versus offensive is an argument that has been ongoing for centuries. I agree with Ron that 'X-Rated' is subjective just as knowing who would be judging acceptable versus not would be a good thing.

Consider the term 'extremely disturbing materials'. 'Extremely disturbing' could range from detailed descriptions of victims (Jack the Ripper to Theodore 'Ted' Bundy) to those who landed in the abattoir of WWII Concentration Camps.

A disingenuous author could title a work 'A Child's Primer on Etiquette', a work describing in perfect detail how inhuman humans can be to their fellow humans without ever once mentioning sex or using what might be considered a profane word, a work suitable for all ages. After all, if "there is no room for censorship or self-doubt when writing" who could object?

It's a big discussion and could go on for decades and be different from country to country. There will never be agreement.

However, I like what Margarer Atwood says. Write as if no one will read it. To paraphrase, "Write as if each word is erased after you write it." If this is the case then, there is no room for censorship or self doubt when writing.

And I reiterate. Do not click on adult content unless you're using a lot of c words. F words are of everyday use in North America.

It's a big discussion and could go on for decades and be different from country to country. There will never be agreement.

It is argued about constantly and ideas change, but all the same, countries do have laws to state what they consider to be objectionable (porn or whatever.) So some committee in each country have reached an agreement. They do get together now and again to discuss it again and those laws do change over time.

However, I like what Margarer Atwood says. Write as if no one will read it. To paraphrase, "Write as if each word is erased after you write it." If this is the case then, there is no room for censorship or self doubt when writing.

What often happens is the laws are adjusted according to peoples' changing perceptions of what is acceptable or not. In other words, if a few million people buy and read a book with content once considered to be objectionable, and they don't object, then the laws have no choice but to shift.

And I reiterate. Do not click on adult content unless you're using a lot of c words. F words are of everyday use in North America.

You can take the risk of not clicking Adult, and wait for some people to moan at the content, because below the age of 18 (in many countries) it's most profanities that are illegal in media. On UK TV there are set Watersheds below which certain words are not allowed (as well as the level of anything to do with sex.) It's based on the idea that certain age groups go to bed below those times. A few decades ago there was no Watershed because no profanities or sexual activities were allowed to be aired. Then again, TV used to go off at 11PM!

Even being 'Real' does not allow, for example, sex and profanities to be shown in any media aimed at the under 18s. Sorry, it's the law. However, it's often the parents who place the complaints.